ML12340A610
| ML12340A610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/2012 |
| From: | Purdue University |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 22874, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12340A610 (23) | |
Text
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit NYS00424B Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
In the Matter of:
(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) Submitted: June 29, 2012 ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS00424B-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn:
Rejected: Stricken:
Other:
A.6.4.1 Distribution B.1 tion Data. Percent ces by Method VI K-2 in Percent.
n .,
- o. c.
B.3 Symbols D.1 int Study _
0.2 Indian E.3.1 E. 3.2 t' ..... ~
c.,).,)
E. 3.4 ne XFORM E. 3.5 E. 3.6 Average Single:'
E. 3.7 L3.8 APP i i ante-s, E.3.10 ~th Selected
£.3. il by
- by Function OAGI0001550_00029
t\PPENDIX TABLES (Cont~
Number of Cowwercial Buildings by Number of Floors and Function . . . * . . . ...
E.J.21 Number of Commercial Buildings by Total Square Footage and Function *.....*
E.3.22 Area Measurements from Commercial Buil oi og fl oor PI an * . * * . * * * *
- E.3.23 Sampiing Results for Distribution of industrial Surfaces * . . . . . . . E.52 E.3.24 Summary of Data on Horizontal Exterior Surfaces in Industrial Land Use Areas . . . . * . . [,52 Oistribut:on of Exterior, Horizontal Industrial Areas . . . .
E.3.26 Numbers of Industria-I Buildings by Total Square Footage . .
- xxxi OAGI0001550_00030
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted by the Pacific Northwest laboratory (PNL) for the United States Nuclear Regulatory CO!1!T!lss10n (NRC). 01vj510 0 of Safety Rev 'I ew and Ove is i ght. Off ice of Nile lear Reactor Regu 1at i on (NRR) . It '1:tas.
undertaken to provide the NRC with improved technical information and enhanced ana I yt i ca I capabi lit i es regardi ng accident consequences. am! s1te restor<!ti on following a major radiological accident at a nuclear power plant.
, , ORGAN1ZATION 1.1 This report is organized as follows. In the next section we present an overview of three major resources de~eloped at Pitt tor conducting iI site restoration analysis for a radiologica l ly contarrnnated a,red. The resources consist
- a body of technical information relati ng to t he decontamina-tion of property o a set Qf prOCedureS and software tools to facllitate (00-structing a database of information specif i c to the radiologically contaminated site
- computer software for analyzing the information and produc-ing quantitative results re1cvant to re5tordtion uf the sHe.
We refer to the first resource as the Reference Dd tabdse'. Tile s i te-spec if ic information on the contaminated site comprises the Site OdtdDa5e. and the program that analYZeS the information is cal l ed OfC~V~
Chapter 2 de,cribes the Reference Database. The chapter begins wi th a description of the contents of this database, whIch contains numeri cal information relating to many aspects of decontamination procedures . The concepts embody; ng these data are di scussed. and the underlyi ng ass.iJmpt ions, are made explicit.
The Site Database is addressed i n Chapter 3. Un l ike the Reference Database, which contains detailed but genera l information that can be appl'!ed to nearly any site the information in the Si te Datdbase is. site-s.pecific .
1 1.1 OAGI0001550_00031
lhl ~ mCdns that the contents 01 ttle database for one site will generally be Ithl p prO~I'I.u,; iO I' other ,ites. Rather than focusing on the actual values in t he Site Database, we concentrate our efforts on evaluating alternative meth-ods for characterizing the accident site and on developing procedures for pn)d~JCln9 the site..,specific information.
in Chapter 4 a descript ion of DECON ana It5 supportIng software programs is presented. The 10gic~1 flow of DECON is described, as well as its various features and capabilities. Supporting software programs that have been devel-oped for nlaintaining ana updating the Reference Database and for preparing the Site Ddtabase are also discussed in this chapter~
The final chapter demonstrates the use of these three analytical resour-ce~ by applying them tD a case sturly cDnsisting of a series of hypothetical reactor accidents. The reactor site selected for this analysis is Indian POlnt , whlcn lIes about qU Km to tne north or ~ew YorK ~I'y. Because the population density around this site is significantly higher than at most other reactor sites, the accident consequences are likely to be more severe than similar accidents at other reactor sites . In additicn the plume direction t
was selected in all cases to maximize the property-related losses; hence, the case study does not provide representative resu l ts.
This report also contains several appendices~ The first two appendices provide deta'l led documentation for the Reference Database. Appendix A des -
cribes how the decontamination costs, rates, ana Inputs were derived. A discussion of the assumptions and principles underlying the development of the decontamination efficiencies is presented in Appendix B. The preponderance of the data contained in these two appendices was'developed from information suppliEd by original sources. To fa,cilitate updating of the Reference Data-base, these sources with their telephone numbers are supplied in Appendix C.
]t should be mentioned that the information on decontamination efficiencies in Appendi~ B has not been reevaluated since publjcation of the 1985 report.
Meanwhile, new evidence on decontaminati'on efficiencies has been and is cur ~
rently being developed, based on actual field experiments. We antIcIpate that we wi'l l have an opportunity in the near future to reevaluate the decontamina-tion effiCiencies, but constraints on time and resources have prevented such a study at this time.
Appendix D documents the sources of the data and other information used in the Indian Point case study. Appendix E pertains to the Site Database.
describes the methods for characterizing an accident site, and it presents the technical relationships that are used to' transform land use information into information Oil surfacEs.
, ~
OAGI0001550_00032
1.2 BACKGROUND
The cur-rent study builds on tile research contained i n the 1985 report (Off-Site Consequences of Radioiogicai Accidents: rrernoas. Costs. dna Sched-ules for Decontamination, (NUREG/CR-3413j. Thi 5 report was motivated by ttle NRC's need for more reliable information on the socioeconomic consequences of accidents at nuclear power plants. Accident consequence information is used in estimating the social costs of reducing health risks pO~ed by the pos-sibility of major accidents at nuclear power plants. Major policy areas in which reactor accident risks have been evaluated include the development and implementation of reactor safety goals and the assessment of alternative ~ites for yet - to - be -constructed nuclear facilities. To the extent such policy decisions are based on costirisk criteria. the accident consequences to prop-erty must be evaluated since they comprise a significant component on the cost side. In addition, plant licensing I'equirements include the preparation of env; ronmenta 1 impact statements (£ISs). whi c:h rn'Ul~t contai n an asses;sment of the potential impacts of radiological accidents.
A severe radiological accident has the potential of causing early in-juries and deaths, long-term cancers, genetic effects, and widespread damage to property. The off-site property losses from such an accident could run into the billions of dol lars .. To estiiiidte these losse~. the NRC relied on a i
sophisticated computer model called CRAC2. This model simulates a radiolo-gical accident and provides estimates of evacuation. relocation. crop inter-diction, milk interdiction, land interdiction, and decontamination costs, as well as various health effects.
Estimates of accident consequences from CRAC2 indicated that for severe acc i dents the land i nterdi ct i on and decontami'nafi on costs tend to domi nate the other estimated accident costs~ It ~as ;therefore reasonable that these costs should be iconsidered iii any attempt to impJ'OVeon this liifof'iiiition. 1ft addition to reexamining these costs. the 1985 report also evaluated other components of social costs not addressed by CRAC2.
Since publication of the 1985 report, tneOffice of Radiation Programs In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also provided financial support to PNL's research in this area. EPA's i.nterest stems from its respon-sibi 1 ities to develoo reentrY and relocatloncriteria for areas thatmiaht
- - ,"-.:*. - -. :.'. ~ -_ . - - _.. -- - oJ become contami nated from a severe reactor' acei de*nt. In the event of such an accident state and local ufficials wuuld."navE to determine lony-term felocd-l Hon criteri a. Long-term rei oca1';*on criterIa estab 1 i sh the condit; ons und.er which residents and businesses would be permitted to return to the affected areas on an unrestricted and permanent b,!siS. In order to provide these offi-ci-als with useful guidance, the EPA contracted with PNL to, develop procedureS 1.3 OAGI0001550_00033
tnat could be aDolied bv state and local agencies. These procedures, which can be implem~nt~d by m~k;ng use of the resources described in this report~
will enable the state and/or 10ca1 agencies to develop for themselves the cieanup cost components and estimates of the health risks. PNL has also PiO-vided guidance for organizing these elements into a costirisk framework. This format should make the results more useful to state and local decisionmakers as they select the relocation criteria~
Another agency that has provided financial suppor. In this area is the U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA). The interest of this agency is in pro-ducing a management tool that can be used to evaluate the property-related costs and to develop and evaluate alternative site restoration strategies for areas contaminated as the result of is nuclear weapon accideiit~ Following a weapon accident, U.S. Government offic i als would have two ~esponsibiiities to state and local officials: 1) to negotiate appropriate cleanup criteria, and
- 2) to deve10p a strategy for restoring the contaminated site to the agreed upon criteria. The resources described in this report have been used in field exercises that addres~ both of these responsibiiities.
1.3 OBJECTIVES The 1985 report had as its major goal to OUIJO upon the methods used by the NRC to estimate the decontamination and interdiction costs of a severe radiological accident. Four major obJectives .ere identHied toward meeting this goal. The first objective was to c,011ect and present information from published dod unpublished sources on acceptable decontamination procedures and the circumstances fa~orable to the application of each. This part of the study involved conducting a literature search and interviewing individuals having experience or expertise in these areas.
The second objective was to develop sufficient information to describe the product i on and cost funct; ons for each de.contaminat i on procedure. A production function describes the relationship between the physical inputs and the output of a production technique; that is. it describes hew the output changes as the quantity of one or more i~puts is changed.. The cost function.
on the other hand, describes the minimumco~t for producing each output quan-t ity. Once input costs are known. cost functi ons can be deri ved di rect 1]1 from the production functlon~
ihe third objective was to develop a methodOlogy 'tnat ...OUla enallle aua commonly available by political subdivision to be mapped by software into the elements of the accident grid. CRAC2 utilizes a radial grid to characterize 1.4 OAGI0001550_00034
thE' accident site, and an analysis based on site-specific infonnation re-qui r~es the analyst to adapt population and property infonnation to the radial grid. The difficulty in doing this can often become a major disincentive for conductlng an analysis using site-specific information.
fhe last major objective was to develop a computer progra.m that is compatible with CRAC2 and that combines certalrl input5 from CP'6~C2 'A!ith other datil to produce a variety of information relating to site restoration acti-vities at the accident site. This infonnation was to include the effects of the accident on property values. The computer program was to be designed to significantly exceed the capabilities of CRAC2 in providing an dccurate and lnformative analysis of site restoration activities and property value ef -
fect,.
The primary objective of this revision to the 1985 report is to provide documentation of the capabilities that have been added to the software pra-giams since publication of the 1985 report. These enhancements include:
Addit 1 ons e Eight additional contaminated surface categories: Exterior glass, exterior concrete wal1~, interior gla~5, reservoirs, 50ft-surface furnishings, hard-surface furnishings, elec-tronic equipment, and paper products G Approximately 150 additional decontamination methods
- Three additional land use categories: Multi-family residen-tial~ la~ns and reservoirs
- Surveying and monitoring activities
- Waste disposal operations c Collective dose avoided by- relocating the displaced population
- Collective dose to radiation workers
- Computat i on of evacuat i on cas ts~ and temporary and permanent re 1OCI1-tion costs
- Capability of defining new land use categories as a linear combina.-
tion of existing categories 1.S OAGI0001550_00035
A oaramQunt concern in desionino our methodoloQical approach has been the econ~mic consequences of site~resioration decisi~ns. Th~ principle that we have strived to apply to all such decisions is that the net present value vf the social costs of the accident should be minimized by taking appropriate countermeaSUT'es, However, some of the costs, such as those associated with health effects. are not addressed directly by our methodology. Hence, total social costs may not be minimized; but by including all of the important property effects we do minimize at least a major subset of them.
One advantage of this approach is that it allows the cleanup criteria to be set prior to and independently of the costs of cleanup and the property losses. However, becaUSe stricter critEria will generally result in higher cleanup costs, the decision maker may wish to consider closely the tradeoff between the cleanup criteria and the site restoration costs before finalizing the cleanup criteria. A ne~ capability of OECON is to provide a cost/risk analysis which makes this relaticns!lip explicit. It is anticipated that this feature will encourage the use of cost/risk evaluations in the decisioii pro-cess.
The next step in constructing the decision framework was to consider the types of decisions that would need to be made. A severe radiological accident coula contaminate thousands of square miles of property with losses to society in the billions of dollars. In view of this and in addition to the health issues, two central concerns would likely emerge: 1) recovery costs would need to be kept manageable, and 2) personnel and equip~~nt that are available in re 1at i ve 1y abundant Stipp 1y should be ut 111 zed so that the i"ecQvery process wouid not be delayed. Consequentiy. our approach was to search for effective decontamination procedures that were relatively inexpensive and that made use of widely available equipment and personnel.
vur search for decontamination procedures meeLlng rnese two requirements was generally successful. Published sources provided some information on the decontamination efficiencies of various techniques applied to a variety of surfaces~ Unfortunately, this information was deficient in several respects~
but it did provide a nucleus cH'OUflo which to build a more comprehensive ahd useful database.
1,4,1 The Reference Database Ine next logical step was to prepare an inventory of decontamination procedures and to identify the surfaces to which they could be applied.
Well-defined procedures for decontaminating surfaces are called decontamina-tion operations in this report. Table 1~1 presents a list of the operations 1.7 OAGI0001550_00036
- User-selectable output units (U.S. standard units and International System of Units (Sl))
- On-screen "Help" messages
- Cost/Risk Analysis - Produces output relating the cost per fatality avoided as a function of the cleanup level
- Capability of producing complementary cumulative distribution func-ti ons (CCDFs)
G Master menu for selecting among the major softwoie programs
- Single step installation program
- User's Manual with exercises and detailed explanations
- User friendly program for preparation of the Site Database
- User friendly program for modification of the Reference Database Revisions
- Number of autos to be decontaminated is now a function of the number of households, the time af day. and whether the accident occurs on a weekend or weekday.
- Output values are now reported in scientific notation
= Menu designs are mOTe attractive and prompts are easler to understand 1.4 METHODOLOGY AND OVERVIE~
The Cherfioby 1 acci dent as we 11 as re.search tilat PNl has conducted on off-s ite acci dent consequences clearly show that decontami nat i on costs and property losses can range into the bi! lions of dollars and account for the major share of all off-site costs. Siteresto,ration decisions can therefore haVe major economic consequencEs. Sele:ct(on 9f the cleanup criteria tSOne such deci s i on, but there are a number of others as well. such as whether to decontaminate unpopulated wooded areas or instead restrict access to them.
1.6 OAGI0001550_00037
- LiLlLllL.Ll. Decontamination Operations and Associated Symbols Symbc 1 .?ymoo 1 Operati on A Piow x Scrape 10 to 15 em and Remove B Vacuum Blast y Deep Plow C Strippable Coating 2 Remove Structure D Defoliate a 15 em Asphalt Layer; E Leachilig~ EDTA Add 30 em Soil (No Trees)
F Foam b Wash; Wipe G 7.5 em Asphalt Layer; d Dust Add 15 em Soil (No Trees) e Tack Coat H High Pre~sure water f Sealer Coat 1 Steam Clean 9 Add 15 em Soi 1 (Trees in Place)
J Wash and Scrub; Shampoo Carpet h Hand Scrape K Resurface Ion Exchange L Machine Copy Printed Matter M Close Mowing n Spray Solvent N Clear 0 Vacuum Paper in Place o Plane, Scarify; Radical Prune p Vacuum Exposed Paper Surfaces p Thin Asphalt/Concrete Layer q Vacuum Individual Pages Q Very Hi gh Pressure water r Drain Reservoir R Remove and Replace s Steam Clean Fabrics S Sandblasting t Fixative, Aerial Application T Surface Sealer; Fixative Double Vacuum u Hydrob1asting Double Scrape v Vacuum y Dredge W Low Pressure Water z Remove Interior, Clean, Replace Ooerations to Automobiles o Detailed Auto Cleaning T Tow E Clean Engine with Solvent V Vacuum I Steam Clean 101 Water J Wash and Scrub c Drive Auto Out K Repaint m Auto Transport Truck R Replace;Reupholsier v Double vacuum S Sandblasting z Remove Interior/Clean/Replace 1.8 OAGI0001550_00038
(:l,tTl'nt.i v illUl l l!rnentl:d i1l1(1 the "vmbu] for each. wller-e d ~ymbol is used to de~rr i be~di~~inct!y differ'e!lt o~er'atlonsl the actua l operation should be clear fn)i1i tht:* ~u(ftlCe on which i-l is used . The operat iOil';, for automobiles are heparately Identified for cldrlty.
As noted, 'it'(ontamination opPY"ations are applied to surfaces. The
~\JT*tace cdtegories that are currently implemented are presented in lable 1.2.
WtHIII~ ';.OfTll! of the surfac{~ categories iisted in this table are actually com-po~ed of several surfaces--e.g., orchards and automobile interiors--in these cases it is reasonable to assume that the mix of the different surfaces within edeh ,urface [dtegory does not yary s ignificantly. Thus, for example, it is as.~umed that the leaves, brancne5 and so11 in one orchard wi 11 requi re essen-tially the same type and level of treatment as the leaves, branches and soil in dnother equally contaminated orchard covering the same land area. It is also noted that an operation with the same name but applied to a different surface lS treated as a different operation. Thus. for example. vacuuming a roof j~ a dlstinct operation from vacuuming a concrete street.
In decontaminating a surface, it seems appropriate in many cases to use a sequence of operations rather than just a single operation . For example, before treating a concrete street with high pressure water, it may be cost~
effective to vacuum it first. Similarly, it may be cost-effective first to apply a fixative and then to clear vacant land before scraping soil from it.
Table 1 . .f . Surface Types/Categories Implemented by Of tON Surface Surface No. S~u~r~f~a~c~e~ ___________ No. Surface
- 1. Agrlcultural Fields 16. Interior Walls, Wood/Plstr
- 2. Orchards 17. Interior Wa11s_ Concrete
- 3. Vacant Land 16~ Interior Glass
- 4. Wooded Land 19. floors, Carpeted
- 5. Streets and Roads, Asphalt 20. floors, Linoleum 6 . Other Paved Surfaces~ Asphalt 21. Floors, Wood
- 7. Streets and Roads, Concrete 22. Floors, Concrete
- 8. Other Paved Surfaces, Concrete 23. Hard-Surface Furnishings
- 9. Lawn, 24. Soft-Surface Furnishings
- 10. Re,ervoirs 25. Electronic Equipment
- 11. Roofs Paper Products
- 12. Exterior Wal1s~ Wood 27. Auto Exteriors
- 13. Exterior walls, Brick 28. Auto Interiors
- 14. Exterior Walls, Concrete 29. Auto Tires IS. Exterior Glass 30, Auto Engine and Drive 1rain 1.9 OAGI0001550_00039
An effective decontamination strategy will likely include such sequences of opel'ations rather than only single operations. We therefore define a sequence
" 'f
.., ena
.. ~ "u,... mo~e I vt"'-= at)' on<
"nUI' 101 ~s a dern,",t.*
... .. _ ,.- *.m** *.'nat '.' "."
_ **-. thad .
- jojt;"_
The Reference Database consists of data on decontamination methods. An important characteristic of this database is that it can be applied to nearly any radiologically contaminated site without alterations to its data contents.
The contents of the Reference Database are described in the next chapter.
along with the assumptions underlying i t .
1.4.2 The Site Database The Site Database contains information specific to the contaminated site . To conduct a decontamination analysis, five types of information must be provided for each grid element:'
- population
- area and type of property that is contaminated
- degree to which the property is contaminated
- value of the affected property.
- employment data by major sector .
These i nfonnat ion requi reRlents a" ~ addr:essed in greater detai 1 in Chapter 3. However, there is orie a<,pe,c t .. of this topic that pertains to the lI!ethodo logy. The approach deser'; 'Jed fn) hi s rfport requi res the an~ly~t to
~haracterize the contaminated ;,r-eas in \t 'e nnso¥ land uses, but the" ~f!~Qh7
~~:~~~~~~~ ~:a ;~~; :m!~t C~~~~C!~~'r~;chh;~ "~,~$,:~,~ ~~a~:g~:!~:d S~~W;f!~~~J&et~;2; l,and use data into data on the. surf~te*'c'ateiJor:,]:es. The llechani smth\iti <has tiee" deve loped for thi s purpo~~ :~1 s-<~~s~d L,Or;: ~~~"~rved re 1at i onslil'i)~~~~l~fn l,and uses and thei r const i tuentsu~f.ac.~s :; ;:jf~p)* exampl e, property. des!g~.~~ed r es i dent i ali s compri sed of ex:~~r~i or , w~'l~l s(~02~. , bri ck and COilc,r!lfii,j:~ ; ;,f~ oors
~wood, carpeted, 1i noleum and 'c~;ri-cre~e:r~ ' fnterJ~ r walls (painte(ra~p ~oh" crete), roofs, I awns. and "ottie~ ' '~aJ~il 't~u r,fit:e~.* (asphalt and contr~J;~ .
r:e 1at i onshi ps bet~een types of 'prope'rtyt~iihd " thEd r surface compoiieiit'~ are deVEloped in ApPEndix E.
8es i des co 11 ect i ng data on the acci*(jeilt '" - --
area,
. there i 5 another task re 1at i"g to the Si te Database. Thi s isla iselect an appropriate gt; darrarygeF",:
ment; i.e., to partition the accident ""a:r~a'>"into ' a number af subareas, or gritr':>,~
'Employment data are only tequ.i red if estimates are to be obtained
~vacuation costs and temporary and peMii'n'e'n t relocation costs .
1.10 ,!-..
OAGI0001550_00040
eh;H1wnt~ . Wt:! ,1~~unw tha.t each pCH"t-ition or grid tdemrnt has the following two characteristiCs: throughout each grid element 1) like surfaces are contami-nated to the SdmH level: and 21 each type of property has approximately the
~i\!l!e value per u!!it land area,* The procedure fw defining the grid element bouncitlries should be guided by these two criteria. Wlt, , h t,hese crl. t. . erH!
In nlirlti, we consider' five different way~ of partitioning the contaminated area into gr id elements. The first four are: 1) a grid with elements of identical s i ze and shape; 2) a radial grid; 3) a grid wiU elements defined by the boun-daries of the radiDlogical iSDpleths; and 4) a grid with irregularly shaped grid elements whOSe bCL.:ndaries may be coterminous with those of political sub-dlV1S10ns. Tne last two arrangements can be combined into a fifth type, in which grid element boundaries are comprised of both subdivision boundaries and the radiological isopleths. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these arrangements are discussed in Chapter 3.
OECON is a comp~ter program that takes the information in the Reference Ddtabase on decontamination procedures and systematically applies it to the inforlllation in the Site Database. DECON reports the site restoration costs, the decontamination procedures used, the manpower and equipment required, property losses, a decontamination schedule and a variety of other information that is potentially useful in developing a site restoration ~trategy~ A detailed discussion of DECON appears in Chapter 4.
1.4.4 A Decontamination Analysis of the Indian Point Reactor Site In Chapter 5 we conduct a detailed analysis of several accident scenar-ios at the Indian Point reactor site. ~hich is situated 40 km north of New York City. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the uses of DECON and the interpretation of its output. The results that are reported should not be considered as representative of reactor accident consequences either for prEssuriZEd water reactors (~~R) in general or for thE Indian Point reactors.
since ine plume oirection was seieeted to maXlmlze the ott-site aCC10ent consequences in an area having a particularly high population density.
1.11 OAGI0001550_00041
'J n l, .V In this Chdple!' we de~cribe how the Refer~nce Database was developed.
[dr-: i ei" wE.' ;:,tdtetl Uhlt the [Tklin principle underlying our approach in develop-1n9 d ~lte restor'atiO!l strategy is to mininlize the net present value of the sIte restoration and other property costs caused by a radiological accident.
Thes~ costs Cdn be minImized by making several types of choices. First, a proc<,du!'p must be ~elected for decontaminating each surface. The choice wi 11 depend ir, large pdrt orl how little residual contamination will be allowed to remaln, the effectiveness of the procedure in removing contamination, and the cost of applylng the procedure. Generally, the least costly methoa tna'L rt'duces contamination to any level at or below the permissible level will be the preferred choice. However, other factors may also need to be considered.
For e~ample, the procedure may rely on specialized equipment that is not d~al1able in sufficient quantities. Or water runoff from certain decontamina-tIon procedures may contaminate underground water supplies or water treatment faCliitles. Such external effects need to be considered to ensure that the
~t'lectfod method will not be more costly overall than other available alterna-tlve~.
Another cleanup decision relates to how quickly decontamination opera-tions should ~e initiated. At least five factors affect this choice. Radio-active decay and weathering act to reduce effective exposure, thus enabling cleanup requirements and costs to decline over time. On the other hand, while the property 1S awaiting decontamination it cannot usually be used. Deferring the use of the property will be co,tly; the more valuable the property and the longer that it lies in disuse, the greater will be the cost. Two other factors that may diminish the value of the property over time are phjsical deterioration and obsolescence. Depending upon the relative importance of each of these five factors, social costs may sometimes be minimized by defer-rlng decontamination operations for some specific period of time.
In addition to the factors mentioned, there are other considerations that may affect site restoration. For example, except in unusual circumstan-ces, it will generally be impractical to decontaminate a property if the surrounding property is allowed to remain contaminated over an extended period of time. Another example relates to the political pressure that will be brought to bear by those suffering property losses. There will be pressure to decontaminate the property a5 quickly as possible, especially if the decon-tamination costs will not be borne directly by those owning the contaminated property.
2.1 OAGI0001550_00042
iI decision aisa must be made regarding how completely the contaminants are to be removed; i.e., selection of the cleanup level. While the current dpproach does not directly select the cleanup level. it does produce infonla-tion on the relationship between site restoration costs and health risks from residual contamination. Generally. it becomes incieosingly more costly to aVOHl a given increment of aa01tIOnal nealtn risk from residual contamination.
Thus. the selection of the cleanup level can be based on the increasing cost of reducing the health risks.
2.1 CONTENTS OF THE REFERENCE DATABASE To implement the approach described above and thus facilitate a cost-o mlnlffi121ng Slte 0 0 0 0 n:stoiat~on 0 o.
strategy. 1 \. 1$ necessary to Ilave a..-'l1 0 .. 0 1a~,IIe
.. , a comprehensive aataoase relatIng to decontamination activities. At minimum.
the database must contain infonnation for detennining the cost of using a decontamination procedure and the efficiency of the procedure at removing contaminants. The database that has in fact been developed contains the following information:
- cost of the inputs used in each decontamination operation (dollars per unit area decontaminated) efficiency of each decontamination method (percent reduc-tion in committed dose to individuals) coverage rate of each decontamination operation (area decontaminated per shift-hour)
- phySical inputs to each decontamination operation (hours of labor and equipment and quantity of material. per unit area) e volume of radiological waste geneiated by the decontaiiiina-t i on ope rat ion (volume units per unit area covered).
Throughout thi s report we use the, tel"mOperdt ion to refer to a we 11-
~efined, single decontamination pr?c:~'~_~~~il:p~'lfed to a single surf~ce ~y.pe.
Examp 1es. are vdcuurnl ii9 pavemei1tarid,h6$;ii~9,-:,too*f~. However I some op,~r,(ftion-s may invol ve more than one step. For e)(~mpl'e. the operation of removing and
~eplilcing a roof involves the threese~arate steps of applying a fixatlve, removing the roof. and replatin~r the roof T the steps involved in the variou-s ope rat ions are descri bed in App'end'i x A.
2.2 OAGI0001550_00043
One Dr mnrp
... _. - nnerattons
--r' . . ... . . . on executed
- -- a sinole
'"' surface type
- . constitute a method. For example, the operation of vacuuming pavement followed by the operation of resurfacing the pavemeT,t is a method. This designation is impar~
tdnt because the order of the operations comprising a method detennines the net decontamination efficiency; reversing the order of the operations is likely to result in a different decontamination efficiency.
2.2 DECONTAMINATION OPERATIONS. COSTS. AND EFFICIENCIES Decontamination operations and methods have been developed for all of the surfaces listed in Table 1.2. This section describes the principal opera-tions for decontaminating these surfaces. ,ne average cost per sq meter, the average number of sq meters decontaminated per hour, and the composition of cost in terms of physical inputs are presented for each operation. In addi-tion~ some of the efficiencies of the operations are briefly indicated for both the inhalation and external pathways, which are separated in the text with a slash (/). A complete set of the efficiencies for all methods is presented in Appendi~ B.
Decontamination Costs It is important to be clear about what the cost estimates developed in thi s report do and do not represent and to exp 1ai n some of the general methods used in compiling these cost estimates~ The costs. refer only to the direct costs of actual decontamination activities. For eXdmple. in estimating the costs of applying a low-pressure water wash to pavement. we have omitted the costs of protective clothing, radiation monitoring. and potential health costs to workers~
ihe direct costs of the aecontaminatlOn operations have aiso been some-what narrowly defined. Many of the operations give rise to contaminated materials that require transport to a disposal site and subsequent disposal.
Examples are scraping of vacant land and replaceme-nt of pavement and roofs.
Because transport costs depend in large measure on how far the contaminated materiais must be transported. and because this distance is likely to vary from situation to situation, transport costs are not included in the cost estimates of the operations.' However; the Reference Database does contain sufficient information to enable the transportatfon cos.ts to be estimated.
'How~ver, in some of the output reporis. which are discussed iater, the costs for transporting and disposing of radiological wastes are combined with the direct decontamination costs.
OAGI0001550_00044
Speciflcally~ for each relevant operation an estimate is developed of the
~ol~me of contaminated material that must be disposed of for" each unit area of the ~urface decontaminated. Also, cost estimates based on distance have been developed for hauling away the radioactive waste. With regard to disposal, because these materials may be disposed of in different ways, the disposal problem is also treated separately.
Another characteristic of the cost estimates is that they pertain only to the decontamination of the surface type under consideration. In practice.
the contaminants originally on a surface may be transported to surrounding surfaces. InlS phenomenon may occur either prior to decontamination--through resuspension or transport via a host such as a vehicle traveling along a roadway. Or it may occur during the decontamination process itself--again through resuspension or transport.
For example, consider treatment costs for roofs bein9 decontaminated with low-pressure water. The contaminants become entrained in the water, but we include no costs for treating the contaminated water. One reason for e~cluding these cests is that when severa1 alternatives for dealing with the water are available. one technique may not be preferred in all circumstances~
In the case of using water on roofs, allowing the runoff to penetrate into the ground will be perfectly acceptable in some situations; in other situations, the runoff might need to be collected in drums via a penmanent or temporary gutter system; in still other situations, disposal in the sewage system n~y be the best choice. Because of uncertainty about the preferred method. excluolng the cost of disposing of the contaminated water was felt to be the most rea-sonable approactL Tllis loIay. the cost estimates for decontaminating roofs--as this operation has been defined - ~retain th2ir accuracy; the costs for dealing with the contaminated water can be added later once the disposal method has been selected and evaluated.
A second reason for excluding these ancillary costs is that ..-hen the contaminants are transportEd to other surfaCES, thE cast of dealing wit'h them w;)) depend on the type of surface to which they have been transported.
Remo~ing contaminated runoff from soil represents a very different problem from remov; n9 the same runoff from a paved surface.
Still another reason relates to the contamination level on the surface that receives the transported contamination. If the surface is at the outer fringe of the accident area, the added contaminants may be sufficiently dis-persed so that they are of no concern. On the other hand. if the contaminants are added to a surface that is already heavily contaminat.ed. the decontamina-tion costs for this surface could rise dramatically.
2.4 OAGI0001550_00045
In practice, potential problems due to transmlgration of contaminant5 Cdn be mlnimized through mitigating actions. For example, the application of a fixative to heavily contaminated 5urfaces soon after the ac~ident ~il1 ~ig nif~cdntly diminish movement of contaminants prior to and durlog decontamlna-tion. In addition, it is generally advisable to decontaminate surrounding lawns and pavements only after roofs have been treated, and to decontaminate downwind areas only after treating upwind areas.
The costs that have been developed for all of the operations die based on the assumption that very large areas are to be aecontaminated. This im-plies that all economies from large-scale operations are fully exploited. For example. the costs used in most cases for materials reflect large-quantity discount'S. In additioii, the costs for mobilizing and demobilizing manpo~-er and equipment are assumed to be a negligible portion of the total costs of an operation and are therefore not included ir the cost estimates. If, on the other hand, only small areas need to be decontaminated, a premium should be added to the costs to reflect the scale of operations ~ith adjustments for mobilization and demobilization.
Working in a contaminated environment will usually be more costly than working in an uncontaminated environment for at least three reasons. First, per-sonne 1 and equi pment wi 11 be subject to radi ati on control measures ~ In situations requiring personnel to wear anti-c's or other protective gear, timE must be taken out of every work shift-fGr clothing changes and personnel decontamination procedures. Equipment will also need to be decontaminated periodically. and probably frequent1y~ The cost estimates for labor and equipment include one hour per eight~hour shift to account for these radiation conirol measures. InlS is an average value; it assumes that the treatment of large areas near the outer boundaries of the decontamination zone will require no protective gear and few ather rodiation control measures.
A SEcond rEason that the cost of working in a contaminated environment will be higher is that protective clothing will reduce worker productivity.
which in turn will increase decontamination costs. This will be particularly true in warm or hot weather. The cost estimates have not been adjusted for this A thi rd reason i s that workers wi 11 li ke 1y demand a premi urn to work ina contaminated environment because of real or perceived health consequences.
Because we have not investigated ~hat an appropriate premium. might be. we have excluded this effect tram our cost estiiiiatr~~ (However. in the software that utiiizes this database, we have made it very easy to make adjustments. to labor and equipment costs to reflect these and other factors.)
2.5 OAGI0001550_00046
The dollar amounts of these costs are express~d in tenn, of i982 price levels. When usin~ the Reference Database. the cost data should be adjusted by u~;ng an approp;iate price index to adj~~t to current prlce levels. In i able 2.1 we present Gross National Product (GNP) Implicit Price Deflators for pel-lads beginning in 1982. Deflators are given for Durable Goods. Nondurable Goods and Service,. The deflators for durable good, are appropriate for adjusting equipment costs; the deflators for nondurable goods are appropriate fOl' adjusting the cost of materials; and the deflator for services is appro-priate for adjusting labor costs. To adjust a cost category, simply multiply the 1982 costs by the entry in Tabie 2.1 and tnen divlde by lUU. For ex-ample. to adjust manpower costs to fourth quarter 1986 dollars. multiply all manpower costs by (124.3/100) = 1.243.
Ire information in Appendix A details how the costs of all the opera-tions were developed. In many cases, the information underlying these costs shows significant variation, and in a few cases the infonnation is even incon-5 is ten t . Consequent 1Y a (ons l derab 1e degree of judgment had to be exerci sed j
,n the selection of representative costs.
2.3 PROCEDURE2 FOR INTERDICTED AREAS in interdicted areas it will usually be good practice to apply a fixa-tive to all exterior surfaces to prevent decontaminated areas from becoming recontaminated. Aerial application of the fixative appears to be the most practical method to accomplish this. Road oil is one type of fixative. and other types are discussed in Appendix A, Section A.l.l.2.
The application of road oil by aircraft requires an airfield with facil-ities to perform routine airplane maintenance and to rapidly load high volumes of road oil onto the planes. Both large planes such as OC-7$ with an 11.4-kiloliter (30DO-gallon) capacity and small planes with a 1.3-kiloliter (350-gallon) capacity can be used. Flight crews for the larger planes consist of two people, while one person is sufficient for the smaller planes.
Application of several thin coats of road oil to build up an average coverage of i.5 iiters per sq meter shouid provide a relativeiy uniform coat-ing. The cost of aerial application at this coverage rate ranges from $0 11 to $O~24 per sq meter in 1982 dollars~ depending primarily on the type of air-craft used. Adding the cost of the road oil at $0.31 brings the total cost per sq meter to $0.42 to $0.55. Ine expected COSt is therefore about $0.45 per sq meter. The rate of application will be from 1.808 to 16,461 sq meters per hour, again depending on the type of aircraft used. A rate of 14,000 sq meters per hour is ass.umed, since a larger aircraft lS more likely to be used.
2.6 OAGI0001550_00047
Tabl.~2.1. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross National Product(a)
Durable Nondurable Goods Goods Services 1982 100 , 0 100.0 100.0
, n.t:. .,
1983 102.1 102.1 .lvu.",
1984 103.8 105.0 ill. 7 i985 104.5 107.5 117.3 1986 105.3 107.0 122.4 1982 IV 100.7 101.0 ,,...,
... UL.,
"7 1983 IV 103.1 103.1 108.]
1984 ! 103.3 104.4 ..............h 1na rI 103.9 104.5 J..lU.::I n
Iji 104.1 105.1 li2.4 IV 104.1 105.8 113.5 1985 ! 104.6 10b.3 ...... A-. ......U 11 II 104.5 107.4 116.3 iir i04.6 107.6 118.0 IV 104.] 108.6 119.4 1986 ! 104.5 107.8 1?n 4,"-U. ,
7 II 104.6 106~2
.lL£..U n
Iii 105.4 106.B i23.3 IY 105.2 107.5 124.3 1987 ! 105.4 109.8 II 106.1 111.7 ...............
l<:O.~
j i i 107.4 112.6 i28.3 IV 107.5 113 .6 129.8 Source: Economic 1ndicatcrr.s. Prepared for the Joint EconoiiiiC:""'Co,'i~l;lt;.lee,. ;rOO"th Congress, First Sessi on. teDruary 19BB. U. S. Government Pri nt-
- ng Office.
(a) The Impl icjt pri.~7.:.~¢:1.-at~rs are gl'.:en fer three catego~ies~i. ~ut~~l~'GO?ds. Nondurab 1e Goods. Clnd S~l"vices .*..* Th~~e categori es correspond most closeiy)o there~pecth~ cateqories of Eaui
' .pment. Hateri al s;a1\1l
~ .- .~" .... ;' - -
Labor.
- ~
2.7 OAGI0001550_00048
In th i s section we consider appropriate decontamlnation operations for t he s ur faces listed in Table 1.2. For each oper+tion, a discussion is provid-ed on the casts, inputs and coverage r~tes. Als6 addressed are the advan-tag es , disadvantages and special conditions that 'may attend the use of these operations . Costs and rates for the various cperatlons are slJmarized at the end of edch subsecti on . The infomation in this chapter is provided in much gredter detail in Appendix A.
2.4.1 land Surfaces The land surfaces category consists of agricultural fields, orchards, va cant land, wooded land, asphalt and concrete streets and roads, other paved su r faces, and lawns.
There are four subcategories of paved surfaces. Asphalt roads and con-crptp roads refer respect i ve ly to 1arge areas paved wi til a~pha 1t and ~on.crete.
In addition t o highways, streets and roap~, thes~ subcategories include la'r.ge commercidl parking lots and other large paved areas such as loading clbtk areas. The other types of paved surfiices ar~ designated here as other asphaiit and other concrete. These subcategories ' rep'tesent surfaces that cover re'l ,a-tively small areas to which acces:s may be rrmilted. Surfaces in this sub-category include patios, residential drive~ays,and carports. Becaus.~ such
,0' surfaces are not amenable to high productlon rate techniques, the costs of operati ons a re hi gher than for the cQ'r re's;)'(jnd;ing operations app 1i ed to road su'r fa ces.
The decontamination costs for these land surface subcategories are des-cribed below.
2.4.1.1 Agricultura l Fie lds Techniques for decontaminatj ngagrfc,~ltural fields include a eJEcavation, farming, and other pt,ocedutE!s: ,Ot\e ; of the simplest and cos t I y procedures is to app ly wif~er 'tlHdr) v~ (h~ contami nants into However, thi s ; s appropri ate onH i,f ,unile't9":9'll:ri!!'water sLlppl ies loin
,,;(,:..,/ ,,- ',- """ , ~ t*, .* !*.' **\d ;~*'.. :;",*:'t, materi a 11 y ccntami nated and p 1a'il~,swiJl r n:~ty~e5e~e a health hazard cdntami nants through the; i" i"Ootsyste!tos ; 'A,tl~H~fl ood or spri rikler sys terns a r e present, tn is opera,t?
I ~ . . .
i'!ln is
'.,c! -,
0e'iis {:Jy 'act amp 1i shed. Ho,~e~iet.,( "!~~nlfe
- ._J *. \. , " .. ,A., '~ __ "_x" many tle los--espec i a 11 y thOse f6~ raiiS'i ,l'l9~\g!ai 'n<"'.. are not i rri gal"ell of app lyi n9 water is based on Us" "g a fa~k thicl< wi th spreader or bil ity. '
There are a vad ety of fi xat; ves ,'"ilppr,o pr;'a te for Lise on soi I. S'e cti,oiJ A.1.1.2 in Appendix A provides a ' geri~ra l' 'diScussion of til'.atives and t'htiir .
2.8' OAGI0001550_00049
chardcterist ics. For use on agricultural fields, this report assumes applica-tion of Coherex or a s*imi lar product. This is applied using a tank truck with ltquid spray capability.
Using a leaching agent such as ferric chloride Oi EDT A will enhance the ability of water to drive the radioactive contaminants through the soil.
Aga in, however, cons i derat i on must be given to .;1derground water suppi i es and crop uptake.
Scraping involves removing the top 10 to 15 em of the soil surface=
-rhis generally follows the application of a fixative or ~ater to minimize ..=,
- _ ** * * * ;-"--.' _ ~~_ ...L.! _ _ .....
resuspensl0n OT raal0aCtlve partICles aurlng s~rapln9. InlS operd~lun ULI 1-izes standard earthmoving equipment such as front-end loaders. Dump trucks are used to haul away the scraped so; 1. (Haulihg is treated separately throughout this report, because the cost of this activity depends on the dis-tanCe the material is to be hauled. It sh6uld be noted. however. that hayling any great distance significantly increases the cost of this operation.)
in tnel r study OT Decontamination tecnmques and efficiencies, Dick and Baker (1961) found plowing to be very effective against inhalation exposure.
Plowing works by moving the radloactivem~tetiills down into the soil. This standard farming operation has the liw~stcost of any decontaminati.on tf!ch-nique for agricultural fields (ass'um'ir(9,ifn irrigation system is not avcfiJable
-&"._ .......... ....... ,~". ... ~ ... _ ",,& , ...... _....;\ Tl........:',,\.;. ...i;;;,;;;:'_iIO ~ ... ...; .. l....~~ 1 ...... __ ..... ':1" .. k_ ...... .:1.: ... _~
lUI "'11'1; a ....... I I .... al.'VIl UI waL'C'1 J.. IUC'I::'II:~~,UI1,IVI",; "'"I:" IV * .... V~'" 1;;)"11: alJ,'IIJ..~ VI mechanized farm equipment to treat large areas* rapidly. Further, cost es-timates are based on standard tam l"aborcosts, whiCh are substantialiy less than labor costs in construction andtr~di activities.
Whi 1e p1OWl ng mixes the S9i l:~p fP,2,5 ar30 em deep, special equi pment can achieve much greater peiietr~tt~~.' bee'~; plowing has the potential to mix or turn soi 1 to a depth of oyer9Q./cm. One source reportea tne aDlllty to plow to a depth of 1.5 meters throu!1h very ,hard soil. Because the covetjlge rate for deep p1owi n9 i s tel atively ' high)th~cost per sq meter i stel lithely 10w--$0.06--even though the operation requites a cons i derab 1e a!!!O!!!1tof heavy '< ,. ,>Us':
equipment.
Clearing involves removing a ~tal1din9 crpp from a field. In15 may be done to taeil itate other opera;ions such as fixative application or scraping; or clearing may be done ptilllClfily a5ame~ns. ~f removing much of the con-tamination adhering to the crop itself. Clearing is most useful when the volume of the crop is great. ttds".St.i~,~:~~'~':s".:"t~~t equipment used to harvest or other-~ise treat the crop rnay p-~cvi~,r,:}'h"~,:~'bes:t'. ',,!,eans for clearing. The cost estimate here is based on using a swather to remove a corn crop.
2.9 OAGI0001550_00050
Covering the ground with 15 em of uncontaminated 5011 may be performed alone or after scraping. In any case, covering provldes both shielding and protection against inhalation. The costs and rates of operations on agricul-tural fields are summarized in TatJie 2.2.
2.4.1.2 Orchards Many of the operations for treating agricultural fields, ~QQded areas~
Of vacant 1and can a1so be used for treating orchards. Orchards. however, pose some unique proDlems for decontamination. First, the contaminants will not only be distributed over the ground but also in the tree foliage and on the branches and trunks. Thus, an operation that decontaminates the ground wi 11 on I y be part i a 11 y effect i ve in decontaminat i ng the entire orchard.
Second the trees are valuable, and care taken to avoid da~~ge to the trees l
wi 11 often irnpai r the speed. effEcti\l"eness, and choiCe of decontamination operations. The trees limit the type, size and the maneuverability of the equ j pment.
The cost of low-pressure water is based on the assumption that flood lrrigation is available. Consequently, it is very inexpensive.
Application of a fixative is considered from two perspectives. First, an aerial application deposits the fixative primarily on those foliage sur-faces that received the most contamination. In addition, a fixative applied from the ground is directed toward the branches and trunks of the trees and to Table 2.2. Summary aT KepreSentatlVe Cost and Productivity Data for Agricultural Fields Decontamination Operations Rate{a) Cost 0982 1/1112)
Operation (m 2 !hr) Total Laber Equioment Material Water 2.149 0.0219 0.0092 Fixative, Coher~x 2.922 0 .. 2061 0.0068 0.0094 0.19 Leach, FeC 13 1,814 0.052 0.0109 O.015i 0.026 Scrape 875 0.31 0.13 0.18 Plow 25 to 30 cm 6,374 0.004 0.001 0.002 Deep plow 5,000 0.06 0,005 0.055 Clear 543 O.U26 0.009 0.017 COver wi th soi 1 549 0.371 0.106 0.265 (a) The suggested precision of the rate data here and elsewhere in this report is misleading. For the most part, these numbers have been converted from U.S.
Customary Units to metric values. Rather than rounding the converted values, they are presented as calculated.
2.1Q OAGI0001550_00051